Direction de la sécurité de l Aviation civile Direction navigabilité et opérations Transition IR-OPS 3.1 Examen des changements principaux Part ARO
Overview of Part ARO PART - ARO.GEN.OPS.RAMP.GEN Exigences générales.ops Opérations aériennes.ramp Inspections au sol d aéronefs appartenant à des exploitants soumis à la surveillance réglementaire d un autre état membre 2
Overview of Part ARO Impacts des ARO sur La certification initiale et les nouveaux privilèges 3
Paragraph Title Difference MCT ARO.GEN.310 Initial certification procedure - organisations New 3.1.4 3 3.3 3 Reference to appendices I & II : CTA IR-OPS & OPS SPEC Référence à l IR-OPS 4
Paragraph Title Difference MCT ARO.GEN.310 ORO.AOC.100 Initial certification procedure - organisations New 3.2.2.2 ARO.GEN.310 Initial certification procedure - organisations (a) Upon receiving an application for the initial issue of a certificate for an organisation, the competent authority shall verify the organisation s compliance with the applicable requirements. This verification may take into account the statement referred to in ORO.AOC.100(b). ORO.AOC.100 Application for an AOC (b) The operator shall provide the following information to the competent authority [ ] (7) a statement that all the documentation sent to the competent authority have been verified by the applicant and found in compliance with the applicable requirements. 5
Overview of Part ARO Impacts des ARO sur Le programme et les actions de surveillance continue 6
Paragraph Title Difference MCT ARO.GEN.305 Oversight programme Modif. 5.2.3 5.2.5.1 NAAs shall establish & maintain an oversight programme covering all the oversight activities required. The oversight planning cycle of an operator may be reduced or extended : 2 years Normal cycle 1 year Cycle may be reduced if the operator safety performance has decreased 3 or 4 years Cycle may be extended if the operator safety performance has increased 7
Paragraph Title Difference MCT ARO.GEN.305 Oversight programme Modif. 5.2.3 5.2.5.1 3 or 4 years Criteria for extension The oversight planning cycle of an operator may extended to 36 months : (1) the organisation has demonstrated an effective identification of aviation safety hazards and management of associated risks; (2) the organisation has continuously demonstrated under ORO.GEN.130 that it has full control over all changes; (3) no level 1 findings have been issued; and (4) all corrective actions have been implemented within the time period accepted or extended by the competent authority as defined in ARO.GEN.350(d)(2). 8
Paragraph Title Difference MCT ARO.GEN.305 Oversight programme Modif. 5.2.3 5.2.5.1 3 or 4 years Criteria for extension The oversight planning cycle of an operator may extended to 48 months : in addition to the 36 months extension conditions, the organisation has established, and the competent authority has approved, an effective continuous reporting system to the competent authority on * the safety performance and * the regulatory compliance of the organisation itself. 9
Paragraph Title Difference MCT ARO.GEN.305 Oversight programme New 5.2.5 ARO.GEN.305 Oversight programme (b) For organisations certified by the competent authority, the oversight programme shall be developed taking into account the specific nature of the organisation, the complexity of its activities, the results of past certification and/or oversight activities required by ARO.GEN and ARO.RAMP and shall be based on the assessment of associated risks. => IOPS must assess how SSP and SMS are implemented by operators (concept also called Risk Based Oversight - RBO) 10
Paragraph Title Summary ARO.GEN.305 Oversight programme Oversight programme based on the assessment of associated risks (RBO) NAA Safety analysis SSP establishement Assess operators responses to identified risks, during oversight operations Risk Based Oversight (RBO) Actions taken by operators Taken into accountin the operators SMS (mandatoryin Fr. since 2012) 11
Paragraph Title Difference MCT ARO.GEN.305 Oversight programme Modif. 5.2 & 5.3 (annex 17) ARO.GEN.305 Oversight programme (b)(2) Oversight programmes shall include, within each cycle, meetings convened between the accountable manager and the competent authority to ensure both remain informed of significant issues. 12
Paragraph Title Difference MCT ARO.GEN.305 Oversight programme New - AMC2 ARO.GEN.305(b) Procedures for oversight of operations (f) In the first few months of a new operation, inspectors should be particularly alert to any irregular procedures, evidence of inadequate facilities or equipment, or indications that management control of the operation may be ineffective. They should also carefully examine any conditions that may indicate a significant deterioration in the organisation's financial management. When any financial difficulties are identified, inspectors should increase technical surveillance of the operation with particular emphasis on the upholding of safety standards. 13
Paragraph Title Difference MCT ARO.GEN.350 Findings and corrective actions organisations New 5.3.3 Non-compliance detected => 2 levels of findings 1 Level 1 (major finding) NAA takes immediate & appropriate action to prohibit or limit activities, until corrective action(s) taken by the operator. If appropriate, revoke the certificate or specific approval, limit or suspend it in whole or in part 2 Level 2 (finding) Operator must implement a corrective action plan that initially shall last no more than 3 months. Action plan may be extended at the end of the period, if approved by the NAA. 14
Paragraph Title Difference MCT ARO.GEN.350 Findings and corrective actions organisations New 5.3.3 Escalation process for levels 2 findings When an organisation fails : 2 Level 2 (finding) - to submit an acceptable corrective action plan, - or to perform the corrective action within the time period accepted or extended by the competent authority the finding shall be raised to a level 1 finding and processed as a level 1 finding 15
Paragraph Title Summary ARO.RAMP - Ramp inspection of aircraft of operators under the regulatory oversight of another state ( replace SAFA programme ) From October 2014, ARO.RAMP section will replace the Directive 2004/36/CE (SAFA programme). No changes expected Prioritisation criteria Categorisation of findings Follow-up actions on findings Grounding of aircrafts etc. 16
Overview of Part ARO La gestion des dérogations 17
Overview of Part ARO Article 14 of EU Regulation No 216/2008 provides for three kinds of flexibility provisions : 1. Article 14(1), on the possibility for Member States to react immediately to a safety problem involving a person, product or organisation subject to the BR; 2. Article 14(4) (eq Article 8-2), on the possibility for Member States to grant exemptions from the substantive provisions of the BR and its Implementing Rules (IR) in the event of unforeseen urgent operational circumstances or operational needs of a limited duration; and 3. Article 14(6) (eq Article 8-3), on the possibility for Member States to issue an approval derogating from the IR where an equivalent level of protection can be achieved by other means. The flexibility provisions cater for exceptional cases and therefore should not be used routinely in order to seek derogations from the implementation of certain rules of the BR and its implementing rules 18
Overview of Part ARO ARTICLE 14(4): EXEMPTIONS This article is designed to allow Member States granting exemptions from the substantive requirements of the BR or its implementing rules in the event of unforeseen urgent operational circumstances (cumulative) or operational needs of a limited duration, and on condition that the level of safety is not adversely affected. The Member State granting exemptions has to notify mandatorily to EASA, the Commission and the other Member States when: - the exemptions become repetitive, or -the exemptions are granted for periods of more than two months. After an assessment, EASA will issue a recommendation to the Commission on whether these exemptions comply with the general safety objectives of the BR or any other rule of Community law 19
Overview of Part ARO ARTICLE 14(6): DEROGATIONS Member States may grant an approval derogating from the implementing rules of the BR (not the BR itself) on condition that: - the Member State gives reasons to demonstrate the need to derogate, - the derogation leads to an equivalent level of protection by other means, and details are provided on the means and conditions, -the draft derogation is notified to EASA and the Commission before the Member States grant the approval. Subsequently the Agency shall issue within two months a recommendation to the Commission on whether the approval proposed fulfils the conditions. For the Commission: within one month of receiving the Agency's recommendation, the Commission shall adopt a decision 20